From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422823AbXCGRru (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:47:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422954AbXCGRrO (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:47:14 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:21140 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422823AbXCGRqy (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 12:46:54 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=XLCR8J/qwir9NVYWlFcnB2AenJw31Aw613DBqHr93dd0c97ZpbRFBw99DVdDAT2eJ SZ20FMv/FmQIwLAe2mI+A== Message-ID: <6599ad830703070946s1c6c0535oadff0a109731a4f9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 09:46:35 -0800 From: "Paul Menage" To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy! Cc: "Srivatsa Vaddagiri" , ebiederm@xmission.com, sam@vilain.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, pj@sgi.com, dev@sw.ru, xemul@sw.ru, containers@lists.osdl.org, winget@google.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20070307174346.GA19521@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070301133543.GK15509@in.ibm.com> <6599ad830703061832w49179e75q1dd975369ba8ef39@mail.gmail.com> <20070307173031.GC2336@in.ibm.com> <20070307174346.GA19521@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/7/07, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Srivatsa Vaddagiri (vatsa@in.ibm.com): > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 06:32:07PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote: > > > I'm not really sure that I see the value of having this be part of > > > nsproxy rather than the previous independent container (and > > > container_group) structure. > > > > *shrug* > > > > I wrote the patch mainly to see whether the stuff container folks (Sam Vilain > > et al) were complaining abt (that container structure abstraction > > inside the kernel is redundant/unnecessary) made sense or not. > > I still think the complaint was about terminology, not implementation. No, Sam was saying that nsproxy should be the object that all resource controllers hook off. Paul